October 17, 2025 • 40 mins
This week on The Panel, Tim Beveridge is joined by Professor Emeritus of Sociology Paul Spoonley, and NZ Herald Senior Writer Simon Wilson, to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talks
EDB debating all the issues and more. It's the panel
on the Weekend Collective on news Talk said, ba.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
My hand and come with me, because you look so
fine that I really want to make your wine, so
fine that I really won't want to make your about
six tomorrow and get your kicks now. You don't need
the money when you look like that to your heart.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Long bown hell.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
See so.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Back down, Yes, and a very good afternoon. So you
welcome to the Weekend Collective of the Saturday, the eighteenth
of October. You can text your feedback anytime on nineteen
ninety two, and if you are not in a hurry,
can email meet Tim Beverage. The email is timb at
Newstalk SIDB dot co dot in z. Coming up on
today show and just a moment of illustrious panelists who
(01:08):
I'll be in introducing shortly looking just a little further
forward to when we'll be taking your calls after four
for the one ref Radio show Ed McKnight. He's a
resident economist at Ope's partners have a chat about the
ocr because they're designed to sort of kick a bit
of life into the economy. We have a look about,
have a chat about whether that, in fact is finally
(01:29):
going to flow through into a bit more activity in
the property market as well. And maybe if we've got time,
we'll talk about dealing with mortgage regret if you fixed
too long too soon, want to get out of that?
And after five for the parents squad, Kim Harvey joins us.
She's from the Young and Healthy Charitable Trust and looking
at whether our kids are too busy or was our
generation too lazy? So yeah, we'll be taking your calls
(01:52):
on that on eight hundred and eighty ten eighty don't
forget the sports rap shortly before six, but right now,
welcome to the Weekend Collective. It is eight and a
half past three.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Your weekend, Your Way, the Canned Collective with Tim Beveridge,
News Talk Zevvy.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Yes, it's always the fun part of our day. And look,
both my panelists today have more titles than Prince Andrew.
Our first, he's a just get this, I mean you've
got to get this. Distinguished Professor Emeritus Paul Spoonley. I
want to stick Sarah in front of the Paul. But
as we're not there yet, are we how are you hello?
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Hello? No, we're not we're not probably yet. No no, no,
you can't talk here.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
The other one can't talk now you you you're you're
mildly insufferable. Today when I said hello, I said, hey
you been? He said, I've just got back from a
couple of months in Europe and Canada and things. I
was like, get stuffed. Was no, you know what I mean?
Speaker 5 (02:52):
Lucky you fantastic? It was really good.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
What was the highlight?
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Probably France? France Provence really good. Yeah, more more insufferability,
more unsufferability.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Is Provence just superb? Superb? Yeah? Yeah, ye did you
do that? Did you do the cliche sort of just
drink a truckload too much red wine and eat too
much food?
Speaker 6 (03:14):
Yeah it should yeah yeah, no, no, it's good. No,
it's good that it was the Lavender, No, the Leavender.
Leavender was passed. So we went to that bigabby with
they've got the fields. But but but it was hot,
not a single day below thirty and it got up
to forty five, so seriously hot, and just south of out.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
It was on fire. Wow, yeah, I mean literally was
on fire. It wasn't far. Yeah, you meant.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
It was on fire. They closed, they closed. All we
go walking and biking.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Couldn't rus that place, that colors and all that.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
Yeah, we were just on the outskirts of that's where
we stayed.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
I really don't like you. No, thanks, No, seriously, what
a wonderful holiday and joining me. Look, he's maybe he
doesn't have as many titles but as as Prince Andrew,
but he should have. He should be not only senior
writer at The New Zealand Hero. I think he should
be by now, Sir Simon Wilson.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
I don't mind saying. It's lovely of you to say.
I've got to say, listening to you two of you
talking about Provence and France, I have had such a
better time than that I have spent. I have spent
the last month following the Auckland Council elections, I went
to twenty six candidate meetings. I went to another fourteen
related events forty times.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Forty times. Wow, I don't think you.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Could top that, really, because I know the thrills every day,
often more than one a day, on and on.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Well, I just how's the counseling game?
Speaker 3 (04:45):
I like you can tell I'm still there.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
I just love the fact that you seem to almost
be enjoying the company of Wayne Brown these days, and
you and I wouldn't be surprised if you voted from
but who knows. I'm not going to tell you how
I know you ain't.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
No, I do enjoy his company generally. He's a friendly
guy unless you cross him, of course, and he's not
and I've crossed them in the past, but we seem
to be getting on at the moment. I think there
was a big vote for a core program that he
has advocated, which is to do with public transport has
(05:24):
to work well if we're going to have the city
transport overall working well. And in order to have public
transport working well, you need lots of people living near
the big public transport facility, so they need to live
near the new train station's CRLs giving Auckland, and that
means more density. He advocated for that, he didn't resile
from it at all, and he got handsomely re elected.
(05:44):
But also around the council, other councilors, other local boards
who were also on board with that message for how
do we build Auckland in the future, they also did
very well as well.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
So we ended up in Kuipro. Were you for what's
going on there?
Speaker 3 (05:59):
And I would love to have been up in Kuipra.
That's an extraordinary kind of meltdown situation.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
I just love the fact that their council buildings look
like they're sort of in a sort of a prefab Yeah,
it looks like something that's just temporarily there.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
I just want to say Darkerville is a lovely town,
all right, No, but.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
But I'm surprised that the council chamber just looks I mean,
I've only seen one bit of it, but it's sort
of like you can just wander up. It's like it's
a show home for you know, a pre fab house
that costs you maybe one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
They've got what sex or seven counselors. It's yeah, small
good stuff.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Okay, right, Well, on the more serious side of things,
I just thought to ask you guys for your thoughts
on the passing of Jim Bolger. Will start with you, Paul.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
Yeah, Well, I I actually had something to do with
him when he was Prime Minister, and I saw him
last year. We've all got Jim Boulders stories, have we?
And I his son Matt said, oh, Jim's over there
and he's by himself. Go over and I said, oh,
you know, hello Jim.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
As you do as you do.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Nobody was very approachable. He's very approachable. And he said
have I met you before? And I said yes, when
you were Prime minister.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
He said yes.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
I heard a rumor that I was. That's good, but
he he was. He was very engaged and he was
really interested in politics, and you know, he asked me
what I was doing, and he seemed genuinely interested in
what and what my response was going to be. He was,
he had a common touch and he really did, I think,
represent the zeitgeist through the nineties and terms of New Zealand.
(07:31):
He was, he was a very interesting politician.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Mischievously attempted to say that one of the most important
things in the world is sincerity and once you can
learn to fake that, you've got it made, which is
a politician's art.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
As well, I think, and Jim's case should probably be
a bit unfair on the guy.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Oh absolutely, yeah, Simon. I mean, these things it's not
unexpected news, isn't it. But it's a chance to look
back at, you know, someone who's contributed a significant amount
of public life in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Yes it is. I came across Jim Boldra very very
long time ago. I was in student politics way back
in the day, and we needed to have dealings with
the Minister of Education, who wouldn't talk to us and
who was moved Wellington some people may remember, and the
Minister of Labor because there were student work schemes in
those days and so we needed to have dealings with him.
The Prime Minister, Robert Muldoon at the time, had banned
(08:25):
me from parliament. But the Minister of.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Did you get banned by Mulder?
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Did you?
Speaker 4 (08:30):
You were like, who was the guy that got was
it Rolston? Who got?
Speaker 3 (08:33):
No?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Who was it was booted out of that press conference?
Speaker 3 (08:35):
That was Tom Scott?
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Tom Scott Scott, Yeah, me, you like Tom Scott junior.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Junior. The Minister of Labor thought that's a load of nonsense.
We're not going to do that, and he sat down
with me and we had useful conversations and useful meetings.
And that was Jim Bolger. So I've always had a
lot of time for him. The decent man. I knew then.
This is way back in nineteen eighty went through, declared
the decent society and did the reverse. I was reading
(09:00):
something last night about him, how there were two Jim Bolger's,
the Bulger who presided over the rise of what we
now call neoliberalism in the nineties, and also then more latterly,
the Bulger who after he was out of office, who
came back and said, we did the right thing. What
this is what he was in office, The right thing
about treaty relations. We did, and we've got to rethink
(09:25):
how we managed near liberalism and what that meant. My
feeling about it is that Jim Bolger believed in a
functional government, and in nineteen ninety he inherited a country
and crisis, economic crisis. The ben Z was about to
be bankrupt. Banks yes, and Ruth Richardson at that point declared,
(09:45):
I've got a solution, and he went with what appeared
to be functional that was very unpopular, so he got
rid of her. He went with Bill Birch and on
and on through his career. I think he went with
the option that he believed would allow functional government to continue.
It's a very good basis to start with.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
Was he the prime that triggered the national did a
lot of treaty settlements under Doug Graham as minister. It's funny,
isn't it, because National still see is sort of seen
as the party that hasn't you know, it doesn't do
a lot with Mario when in fact, the treaty settlement
process under Doug Graham.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I think everybody in that process, National has been the
leading party historically.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
But I mean in the vibe and social media, you
know what I mean, there's a vibe that's somehow that
and it's like, well how on I mean Doug Graham.
The amount of the progress they might under that was
quite significant. Then no Tahoo and set the baby.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
Yeah, the whack out of Tayy was the first treaty
settlement and that was Jim Bolger and Dug.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Graham, yep, got on him. Actually, funny thing is a
little bit of trivia. I was surprised. I never even
noticed this, but he had turned down special title of
Surge and Bulger, much like Alan Clark, which yeah, so
I can't say, but he obviously did have honors, but don't.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
You remember he had he took a very strong republican position.
He wanted this country to become a republic. But that
was against the inclinations of his own caucus.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Really, I thought it was something to do with something
to do with this strong Catholicism. But Irish, Irish, Irish, Yes,
a Republican, Yes, there we go.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
And Helen Clark not Irish, but said the same as
you said. And if you look around New Zealand there
are some high profile people and you might think, why
are they not a knight or a Dame Marris g
who died recently. I believe he turned down a knighthood
that rang Walker. There are others, would you guys take it?
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Of course not come.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
I turned it down five times, but they do say
you only get to turn.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
It down once. Don't actually funny enough, just a bit
of trivia. My my I'm my line of the family.
My my dad was the closest. He was the second
cousin of our first cousin, sorry once removed, of Lord
William Beveridge, who wrote the Beverage Report, which was the
foundation of the welshfare State and the National Health Service.
(12:10):
But it wasn't a hereditary title because one of us
looked into it somewhere I think went to you know,
just in case. But then because my dad's gone, we'd
have to put up with calling my oldest brother Lord William,
and I don't think if we can handle that.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
We'll do off our cats to you anyway.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
But actually it's nice to have. It's interesting to have
that connection with just in terms of seeing what he
did in the in the welfare state, and and his
views on things which were sort of liberal left, but
you know, he was also there was a sort of
eugenics side too. He didn't believe that people who weren't
contributing to society should be able to receive a benefit,
(12:46):
so you know, and yet quite.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Eugenics, but.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
He was part of a society wasn't an elusive version
of that anymore. But anyway, let's not get distracted by that,
which I think I just did it too late. Never mind,
now the peace deal with Gaza, I mean, gosh, it
does does look tenuous. But you know, I did make
a point of saying I think that Trump at least
as there's a bouquet for getting the final hostages home,
(13:15):
not all the deceased hostages. But was what was your
reaction to the news, Paul Ongoing.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
I think it's great that there's a cessation of fire,
although what's happened. It's full of ironies, isn't it. I mean,
And when I look at the images on my TV,
and I just wonder where the hell they're going to
find the other bodies in terms of the hostages that
have died. When you look at the obstruction the rubble,
(13:42):
and I've noticed this morning that that Hamas is the
one force in Gaza that's keeping peace at the moment
because there's all these rival factions. Yeah, and then of
course there's the ability to get particularly to the Rougher crossing,
(14:03):
the ability to get the the AID trucks in. I mean,
you know, there's still a long way to go, but
at least it's not as violent as it's been.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
No for the time being, I guess. I mean, you
don't want to be Look, he got the final hostages back.
Good on him for that, but you know, it just
seems that that's a bit too ad hoc. It's like
they're talking about the disarmament of Hamas who don't look
like they're ever going to give up their arms. And
it is the Middle East. We've seen the history of
(14:34):
continued conflict, and I'm you'd have to be pretty optimistic
to think that it wasn't going to somehow rear its
head again. I'm very cynical about what's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Oh, I think so. I'm also cynical about what will
happen with and around Donald Trump. I think it is
a fabulous thing for the world that Donald Trump wants
to win a Nobel Peace prize that is clearly achieved,
something that nobody thought could be done. And if he
continues to do it with the Ukraine because he really
wants that prize, well good on him for doing that.
(15:04):
But a larger picture to this, which is that he
is still he is presiding over the disintegration or the
destruction of the democratic institutions of his own country, and
that is widespread and systematic, and it's going to be
very hard to rebuild. And it strikes me that the
model he is moving towards is an old fashioned medieval royalty.
(15:27):
I am the king. I will tell you what to do.
Stop that war, and you you're going to jail for
speaking against me.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Oh yeah, there's the domestic politics things which I must
admit I just pushed to one side and go, well,
at least we've got the hostages back. But then as
I think it was the Daily Telegraph I was reading
reminded us that, and you almost forget this because they're
going he's got all the hostages back. But under Biden
they were about one hundred hostages released. So both presidencies
worked hard for it. I guess the thing is, it's
(15:56):
I just I wouldn't trust to masses as far as
I could throw, and I wouldn't trust net and Yahoo
because They'll only need the smallest pretext to go back
in there and continue leveling the place. And I'm really
worried that that's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Poor.
Speaker 5 (16:10):
Yes, yeah, I mean with Netta Yahu. I mean, a
whole of Israel is distracted and rightly focused on this conflict.
But the question that is being asked increasingly, I notice
in the press is what happens when this conflict is over.
There's a whole lot of issues around Netta now, his
previous behavior.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
And whether allegations of corruptruption.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
And whether or not you know, I mean, my understanding
is that he doesn't have the support of the majority
of Israelis at this point. So and you notice that
that that that event, and that in Israel the other
day that they had Trump there, but they wouldn't have
bb there, you know, he just would generate a reaction.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Trump's name cheered and whose name bood by the same crowd.
Speaker 4 (16:55):
I'm a little bit with I think it's King a
Dollar of Jordan who said that he doesn't trust in
net at all because he said he's got he and
his government had vested interest in continuing conflict to avoid
accountability in an election.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I think that's true, and that also points to the
background to the conflict in Gaza that with America's support,
that conflict went on for two long, terrible years before
they heroically stopped it.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Do you reckon that Trump cares more about the Nobel
Peace Prize than actual pick because he does seem to
be anti war. I think we've got to give him.
He does seem to not like war in other countries.
Do you think that he's.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
Except domestically the national guard.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
The national guard in so called democratic cities that are
under you know, crisis already, which is of course not true.
But is he against war? I don't know he is.
He is extra judicially judicially killing Venezuelans in boats by
bombing the boats. You know, maybe they are running drugs.
(18:02):
Maybe they're not. But even if they are, it's not
a capital offense. There is a due process that can go,
that can happen.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
The guy I feel behind the scenes, you know, Stephen Miller.
He's the one who talks about plenary power. There's that
strange interview where he mentions the words plenary. Then he
pretends as Mike's failed, and he stops talking because he
realizes had a slip of the tongue. He it's guys
like that I worry about because I don't think. I
don't think Trump urns his presidency with his hands on
the controls all the time. I think he says a
few things then leaves it up to his good.
Speaker 5 (18:32):
Miller's the power behind the throne. Yeah, increasingly looks like,
doesn't it. But then, I mean, the thing about Trump
is that what.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Is he going to do next?
Speaker 5 (18:41):
It's the it's the sort.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Of I don't know. Yeah, I'm that's just I hope.
Look and look, if he could stop the Ukraine war,
I'd give him them the Nobel Prize. Personally, I guess
if he could get that stopped. But let's move on
to that, because he's just met with a Celenski. He's
going to be meeting with Putin. And the reason I'm
pessimistic is I think Putin knows how to wrap him
(19:03):
around his little finger and might have met with Zelenski.
Now there's no talk of Tomahawks, mind you, they'd be
silly to talk about it before he's met Putin. But
what do you what prospect of any movement there? Simon?
Speaker 3 (19:14):
The Trump Putin relationship is a little bit similar to
the Trump Nettan Yahoo relationship in that Trump's getting what
he wants out of Nett and Yahoo and is going
to try and get what he wants out of Putin.
But what does you have to also argue Netanyah who
got what he wanted out of Trump? So Putin? What
does he want out of Putin? It is very hard
(19:35):
to know, isn't it, Except that he wants that Nobel
Peace Prize. He wants to be able to say I
made a difference here. What's I'm the negotiating president, the
mediating president, I'm the guy who can fix things. So
he's very keen to follow through on that. But Putin
has given him nothing at any stage in this conflict,
(19:56):
in this war, there's no sign that he's about.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
To what about the tomahawks? Do you think they should
give Zelenski the tomahawks?
Speaker 5 (20:02):
Well, did you notice that it was on the table
and now it's off the table. And the BBC is
saying that some of the Ukrainians come out of that
meeting with Trump and saying we're not sure what's happening next,
and whether or he goes into that meeting with Putin
and Budapest with the tomahawks again on the table.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
It is a fascinating thing about tomahawks. Tomahawks appear to
have assumed the role that nuclear weapons used to have.
We will threaten you with them, but of course everyone
knows we're not going to use them, but we will
threaten you with them tomahawks. I guess the world's a
better place that those threats are not being made with
nuclear weapons. But if tomahawks are given to Ukraine, that
(20:43):
will be a profound escalation of the warm It has
to happen in a context where Putin is able to
save enough face to say, Okay, we got what we wanted.
It's hard to see how that come.
Speaker 5 (20:56):
And Trump, again, to his credit, did talk about the
escalation associated with Tomahawks.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
Yeah, I think he's aware. By the way, I just
wanted a little bit of a winge. And most of
the reporting around the Nobel Prize, yes that almost hardly
anywhere would you hear someone mentioned, because they're all talking about, oh,
we'll Trump get the Nobel Prize, as if it could
have been possible this time when nominations closed in January,
I hardly ever heard that in the reporting. It's like
it was never gonna happen, and yet they made it
(21:24):
look like, oh, He's been snubbed.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
And you know the irony of it that the prize
actually went to the opposition leader in Venezuela, who in
any other situation would have been someone Trump championed.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
So there we go. Let's call it a win one. Anyway,
when take need to take a break, I've gone way
too long. We'll be back into the moment of twenty
eight past three News Talk sed B. Yes, welcome back.
I guess my panels today, Simon Wilson and Paul Spoonley.
You know, look, we have had some fairly serious topics
and we continue with this one. The I'm wondering whether
the whole name suppression thing is we're getting a little
(21:57):
bit the courts. It's not really keeping up with the
modern world. So the rumors on TikTok, which I'm going
to spell this out very specifically, wrongly claimed that Matt
Mowbray was a member of a wealthy key we family
convicted of some really nasty stuff and it wasn't him.
It was on TikTok, but because the information around name
(22:19):
suppression order identified that it was a wealthy New Zealander Simon.
I just don't know if our name suppression laws are
fit for purpose these days, or am I just looking
at a couple of isolated cases and trying to write
it all off.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
There is no easy answer to this one. Yeah, I'm
aware of two or three cases situations where either prominent
New Zealanders or public people in public life are accused
of things or done things, and in my view it's
not in the public interest. So I've written stories about them. Yeah,
(22:55):
And I don't tend to because I think people do
deserve a private life. So I kind of start from
that point. When it comes to you allow some information out,
but you don't allow enough information out and don't allow
too much information out. It gets problematic when the wrong
(23:17):
people have their fingers pointed at them. As Matt Mowbray found,
he had the ability to shut that one down.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
Lucky, thankfully, thankfully.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
And of course because of the Internet, we all have
access to far more information than the courts would like
us to and that happens all the time. I don't
know that it follows from that that you would just
give up and say, oh, it can't be name suppression.
I mean, you know there are people. I mean, the
obvious example is there are people who commit murders. It
(23:46):
doesn't mean you give up on nables against murder just
because it happens. You want to have a society where
you work harder to prevent it.
Speaker 4 (23:53):
How much I think, I guess you've just got the
courts somehow. They need to need to be some guidance
from the Chief Justice whatever about cases which are likely
to attract the attention of social media. So there's some
really nasty charges and you the description of a wealthy
New Zealand family. I mean I've had I was saying
to you guys before that I used to get teased
(24:13):
by my brothers or something when some broadcaster was charged.
There wasn't utam you know, as a joke, but it's
like it's a small pool there is.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
It's just going to add that there is a complication
to it. Whenever it's a wealthy New Zealander who we
can't name, the implication appears to be that it's because
they're wealthy that we can't name them. And that seems wrong.
If that is what it is, it is wrong.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
What do you reckon, Paula.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
I couldn't work out why there was continued name suppression.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
First.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
Secondly, the connection with Matt Mowbray was made by an
AI chat box, so it wasn't even a real person.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
So the.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
Connection and there's a previous connection with this case with
another high wealth New Zealander. Yeah, so we're getting interference here.
The one thing that did puzzle me, and you guys
might know more than me. But the person that was
convicted got five point five years, but then got a
discount of fifty six percent, and it's really interesting percent
(25:18):
fifty six so it goes down to two point five years,
so that it's it's five to ten percent for good character,
fifteen percent for mental health issues, fifteen percent for taking
part in reb I didn't know it was just like
I didn't know.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
There was account system. It sounds like it was fifty percent,
but they were GST registered, so they got JSD on
top as well.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
That discount system is the reason why there are some
teenagers who commit quite horrific crimes and then people are outraged.
They don't get thrown in jail for the rest of
their lives, and is because they are young and vulnerable
and have been abused for most of their lives. And
there are place.
Speaker 4 (25:54):
I think, I think the thing with the name suppression thing.
If you're going to if you're going to go with
name suppression, then and it's a really high profile sort
of case, you simply cannot have any way of narracked down.
It should be like a man in his forties that
that should be as much as you get charge as
opposed to it. Or it's a wealthy New Zealand family,
Oh it's a prominent sports person. Oh it's this no no,
(26:16):
if you're going to have because you know that it's
going to start the ball rolling of people talking, and that.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Is that I'm looking at. Simon. Here, was that a
journalist thing, the description of the wealthy New Zealander?
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yes, of course, Okay, of course don't describe as anything
at all, so.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
We need to focus on well they need how the
supports just need to say you are only able to
describe the age or whatever, the age and gender of
the person who's been charged. Otherwise you do leave it up.
Otherwise it gets out. I mean when there is a
very high profile case going in with the Marakopa thing
that we're not allowed to talk about, but just about
(26:54):
every New Zealand knows the facts behind that. Because I
don't know, I don't know what the outset of the
stuff in.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
That case, whether or not people know what's being suppressed,
the suppression order is apprehensive. No information at all apart
from what's already been in the product domain, is allowed
to be discussed or broadcast or published. In my view,
that's a really good thing. Even though people may feel
there are ways to find out information. I think it
(27:21):
is extremely good. And the reason for that actually primarily
is that as we know this man and his children,
there are children involved.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
I think the thing is that I have a problem
with is that I'd rather that the facts are out
there with about whatever through reputable media sources than the
Bush Telegraph, which spreads any sort of rumor and somewhere
in the middle is the truth. But there's a whole
lot of other bollocks. It goes with it, and that's
the problem. But anyway, we better move on with We
better move on with our next item of conversation. In fact, no,
(27:52):
we won't. We have to take another moment. We'll be
back in just a ticket. It's twenty two minutes to
four news talks that b Yes, welcome back to the
wee can collective my panels today as Simon Wilson and
Paul Spoonley. Now, I have mixed feelings about this one.
I've always thought that the advertising changes, you know, the
having advertisements banned on certain religious days being well, for instance,
(28:13):
Christmas and Easter. Now that basically the government is scrapping
those advertising restrictors, which I generally support, but from a
non sort of religious point of view, because I think
Christmas sort of belongs to everyone. I really don't want
those ads in the middle of love actually telling me
that I could have brought my Christmas presents a day
later for half the price with all those obnoxious boxing
(28:35):
day sales, which is really going to annoy me. But
generally I think the advertising restrictions had to go, Simon.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
I think what you're objecting to is advertising, and we
all object to advertising. But advertising pays for my salary
and yours. Yeah, it pays for media to exist. Yes,
if we don't have advertising, then we have to have
high levels of subscriptions. We have to have a licensing
fees so people can listen to the radio or watch television,
(29:05):
all of those things, and people don't like those either.
So advertising is a is a mechanism that allows us
to have media, and it ought to be distributed relatively
evenly rather than kept off some days.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
I still want to keep Christmas Day free, but.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
Yeah too, I want to I want to watch share
sheank Redemption.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Redemption without ads on it and love actually yeah love?
Speaker 5 (29:28):
Actually no, couldn't we have a couple of days without
without advertising? But the thing that struck me about the
story firstly the assumption that somehow there's going to be
more advertising revenue, but secondly that forty three percent of
us get our information from And I'm desperately trying to
look where.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
This is social media? Was it social media?
Speaker 5 (29:50):
So YouTube?
Speaker 3 (29:51):
YouTube?
Speaker 4 (29:52):
YouTube for it? So it's actually right they've changed it
to be fair. Yes, I just know that there is
there's always that thing at the end of the day,
the Christmas comes on. You've seen a million times, and
I it's actually not that object to advertising per se.
But I always have hated the Boxing Day sales. As
(30:12):
soon as the shops clothes on Boxing Eve suddenly fifty
Boxing Day.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
I think you mean Christmas Eve, Christmas Christmas. Yeah, And
we're a demographic that remembered advertising free media.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
So every Sunday yeah, yeah, really used to be. Back
in the day.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
You wouldn't have missed it because you would have been
at church anyway.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
I heard about it.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
We had little screens on the backs of the pews,
so we all we all actually agree with what the
government's done here. I don't want it's inevitable. Yeah, okay,
I thought we're going to get more out of that. No,
Sorrysial back onto the heavy stuff, because we have had
some fairly sort of substantial topics. I must admit I
(31:03):
did think that Simon Brown either has a very thick
skin or doesn't care whatever when he was telling the
doctors that they were crossing an ethical line by striking,
because at the heart of medicine some very strong ethical
considerations all the time, and so I don't think that
was quite the right move from him, considering all the
(31:25):
time doctors and nurses are governed by ethics and the
hippocratics that of oath and.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
All that gets updated unlike politicians. Yeah, although actually they're
supposed to be that.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
I didn't think big call Syban.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Simmy and Brown lacks something that most other people have,
that skin diplomacy whatever whatever it is. I mean, there
are a number of ways you could answer that, and
everyone will have their own and I'll just leave that there.
But yeah, just to tell doctors, essentially what he was
saying was striking is wrong or the government, we the
(32:03):
government the employer will aside when it's right to strike.
There are exceptions to the general rule, but the general
rule is that strikes are regarded as a legitimate democratic
tool in our society for negotiating between employer and employee.
And we have done as a society fairly well out
of having those negotiations be robust and having broad rules,
(32:27):
but certainly not having the people with the power, which
is the employer the government in this case, setting all
the rules and telling the employees you can't do it.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
Does feel like it's striking season, like the teachers. We've
had the fire service who struck for a couple for
an hour or something, and it does feel I don't
know as a as a punter. For instance, my wife's
a teacher, so we have a vested interest in more money,
of course, But I've got to say that they're not
They're not necessarily winning the battle because times are tough.
(32:56):
There are a lot of people in the private sector
be like God, I'd love to have had the pay
rises that some people have had. So the messages. The
economy is struggling, and I know, of course we love doctors.
I'd love everyone to get more of whatever. But I'm
just not sure.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
I'm not sure who's winning the argument here. Putting aside
the ethical accusations of.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
Yes, well, the court of public opinion is going to
be really interesting on this one, and whether or not
it comes down on the side of Simon.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
Or the doctors.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
The initial evidence is that it's on the side of
the doctors. So Simen's going into the lines den and
then poking the beer.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
But it's big and hairy, and it's got clause it is.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
It is and there's some there's some real ironies in here.
If you look at our training of medical doctors and specialists,
we essentially train people to go and then work overseas
and we then bring in immigrant doctors. There are some
things that appear broken about our system and we've got
to get it right. We're not competing with Australia, and
we're not competing in the healthcare sector with Australia. So
(34:03):
you know, I've got some sympathy with doctors and some
sympathy with New Zealand Inc. To get them here and
stay here.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
I agree with Paul about that. I think at the
heart of this, for the public, it's not just an
industrial dispute. This is a dispute about a situation where
our public health system is in real trouble. There is
no real sign from either National or labor that they
have a mechanism or a great desire to fix it.
Speaker 4 (34:34):
Now.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
They are, particularly on the National's part, driven by the
idea that tax cuts will make a better economy and
therefore a better society, and there is, in my mind,
in a direct relationship between those two things. Our health
system is significantly underfunded and under.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Resource and that's still at thirty two billion. It's a
lot of money we spend.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Of course it is. But we need the system. We
need it to be much more functional, and until governments
work out how to do that, we're going to stay
in trouble.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
And and if I can put on my demography hat here,
what we're looking at is increasing costs as the population ages.
So this is going to get worse, not better in
terms of the cost.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Of that health system.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
Glenn Calhoun, who you will probably knows a lot of
FENUA GP and poet, has said that our national our
health system should be a national treasure, and we could
say the same aboutter education system. They're at the core
of our society and so we've really got to get
these things right and working well.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
Actually, just on the fire strike, the PAS server strike.
Fun fact, because I know someone who works in the volunteers.
What percent this is a fun fact. What percentage of
the fire service are actually professional? Or shall I put
it the other way around?
Speaker 5 (35:49):
What percentage eighty five percent of volunteer?
Speaker 4 (35:53):
Isn't it amazing?
Speaker 5 (35:54):
I'm speaking to them. In a few weeks, I thought
it was.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
Over eighty percent of volunteers. So when everyone was sort
of rendering their garments about the fire service being on strike.
It was actually being stuffed while the professionals were on
strike by the volunteers. And it's like that was a
surprising step to me. Was that surprised?
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Did you know? No? I didn't know the actual number,
but I knew it was significant. Yeah, gosh. Well, in
other words, outside of the big cities, all firefighters are voluntary.
Speaker 5 (36:23):
Yes, raging and the raging and then on the challenge
will be to get new people into the So I'm
thinking about new people into the volunteer firefighters. So again
we've got a bit of a crisis.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Now I must heard. I thought you were talking about
firefighters and you said that they're ragings and having a
great time. I imagine Christmas for the volunteer fire fighters. One.
Speaker 5 (36:46):
If you look at some of their calendars.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
Probably.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Raging and aging they were better things.
Speaker 4 (36:54):
They still do the farming calendar.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
They's got one coming back to come out. I saw
a promo for it.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
How are they looking? Well?
Speaker 3 (37:02):
How did that flash up in front of me?
Speaker 4 (37:05):
Yeah? What do you? Let's Wilson with naked your algorithm stuff. Hey,
we'll be back in just to take it's nine and
a half minutes to four news Talks. He'd be Yes
News talk zaid be back with my panelist Simon Wilson
and Paul Spoonley, who I jokingly said at the start
of the show have more titles than than the person
(37:27):
the subject of our next topic, which is Prince Andrew.
I actually had a bit of searching guys as to
whether he's still Prince Andrew. But I think he's still
Prince Andrew. But that's about it.
Speaker 5 (37:36):
He's going to lose the Duke of York because.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
Yes, and he's giving up his dukedom. So the grand
old Duke of York, he has.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Way up and halfway down. He's halfway down now the
top of the.
Speaker 4 (37:45):
Hell and whatever. He's well down, whatever that is. It's
sort of been death by thousand cuts, hasn't it.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Simon, Well, I don't know that he's dead yet. I
mean the cuts will continue, they'll go on and on
and on. And he brought it all on himself.
Speaker 7 (38:01):
It's it's it's mostly when there are celebrity scandals, there's
an element of got caught in the wrong place, wrong time,
unfortunate circumstances.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
What actually when I say mostly sometimes, but in this case. No,
it's a lifetime of getting it wrong and guess what
it comes back on.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
You remember when he was actually celebrated for being randy,
and you know, he came back from the Falklands and
the media and Hello magazine all loved him, and well
times changed.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
I was going to say he's a very unattractive man,
but I think that's been kind to him. I think
he's quite objectionable. I mean, you know the stuff and
the latest which is to say I'd cut tires with
Epstein and then he's sending him emails.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Just this guy.
Speaker 5 (38:49):
You know, if you want to undermine the royal family, boy,
he's doing a good job.
Speaker 4 (38:53):
Well I think that King Charles and Prince William are
actually keeping the other end of it up pretty well, really,
aren't they. Even if you're not a royalist someone.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Well I'm not a royalist, And I'd have to say
in Charles's defense, every time I see him, I think, gosh,
how did you turn from the relatively liberal greenie that
you were into this. I'm just going to say pompous.
But at least he's not saying silly, stupid things and
(39:24):
William isn't either, So yes, in that sense they are
keeping there.
Speaker 5 (39:27):
We talked about ethics before. Man raw family and ethics.
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Well, they have a random relationship with them, depending on
who it is. Actually I must have been. I'm a
bit I quite like Charles, I'm quite like William and Kate,
you know. And it's a model that still seems to work.
And there we go. Anyway, Hey, guys, Paul Spernley and
Simon Wilson, thanks so much. By the way, before we
hit to the news, this is not so much for you, guys.
I'm just going to say, because I think she's reading
(39:54):
the news at four o'clock before she goes home, a
big happy birthday to Sandy Hodge forty nine.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Again, I don't know, nobody makes a compliment like you.
Speaker 4 (40:10):
I don't think before I speak you should wake that
out by now. Anyway, we'll be back with the parents
with the one REFREDI show ed McKnight's with us back.
Speaker 3 (40:17):
Shortly for more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
Listen live to News Talks it'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talks
EDB debating all the issues and more. It's the panel
on the Weekend Collective on news Talk said, ba.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
My hand and come with me, because you look so
fine that I really want to make your wine, so
fine that I really won't want to make your about
six tomorrow and get your kicks now. You don't need
the money when you look like that to your heart.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Long bown hell.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
See so.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Back down, Yes, and a very good afternoon. So you
welcome to the Weekend Collective of the Saturday, the eighteenth
of October. You can text your feedback anytime on nineteen
ninety two, and if you are not in a hurry,
can email meet Tim Beverage. The email is timb at
Newstalk SIDB dot co dot in z. Coming up on
today show and just a moment of illustrious panelists who
(01:08):
I'll be in introducing shortly looking just a little further
forward to when we'll be taking your calls after four
for the one ref Radio show Ed McKnight. He's a
resident economist at Ope's partners have a chat about the
ocr because they're designed to sort of kick a bit
of life into the economy. We have a look about,
have a chat about whether that, in fact is finally
(01:29):
going to flow through into a bit more activity in
the property market as well. And maybe if we've got time,
we'll talk about dealing with mortgage regret if you fixed
too long too soon, want to get out of that?
And after five for the parents squad, Kim Harvey joins us.
She's from the Young and Healthy Charitable Trust and looking
at whether our kids are too busy or was our
generation too lazy? So yeah, we'll be taking your calls
(01:52):
on that on eight hundred and eighty ten eighty don't
forget the sports rap shortly before six, but right now,
welcome to the Weekend Collective. It is eight and a
half past three.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Your weekend, Your Way, the Canned Collective with Tim Beveridge,
News Talk Zevvy.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Yes, it's always the fun part of our day. And look,
both my panelists today have more titles than Prince Andrew.
Our first, he's a just get this, I mean you've
got to get this. Distinguished Professor Emeritus Paul Spoonley. I
want to stick Sarah in front of the Paul. But
as we're not there yet, are we how are you hello?
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Hello? No, we're not we're not probably yet. No no, no,
you can't talk here.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
The other one can't talk now you you you're you're
mildly insufferable. Today when I said hello, I said, hey
you been? He said, I've just got back from a
couple of months in Europe and Canada and things. I
was like, get stuffed. Was no, you know what I mean?
Speaker 5 (02:52):
Lucky you fantastic? It was really good.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
What was the highlight?
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Probably France? France Provence really good. Yeah, more more insufferability,
more unsufferability.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Is Provence just superb? Superb? Yeah? Yeah, ye did you
do that? Did you do the cliche sort of just
drink a truckload too much red wine and eat too
much food?
Speaker 6 (03:14):
Yeah it should yeah yeah, no, no, it's good. No,
it's good that it was the Lavender, No, the Leavender.
Leavender was passed. So we went to that bigabby with
they've got the fields. But but but it was hot,
not a single day below thirty and it got up
to forty five, so seriously hot, and just south of out.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
It was on fire. Wow, yeah, I mean literally was
on fire. It wasn't far. Yeah, you meant.
Speaker 5 (03:41):
It was on fire. They closed, they closed. All we
go walking and biking.
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Couldn't rus that place, that colors and all that.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
Yeah, we were just on the outskirts of that's where
we stayed.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
I really don't like you. No, thanks, No, seriously, what
a wonderful holiday and joining me. Look, he's maybe he
doesn't have as many titles but as as Prince Andrew,
but he should have. He should be not only senior
writer at The New Zealand Hero. I think he should
be by now, Sir Simon Wilson.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
I don't mind saying. It's lovely of you to say.
I've got to say, listening to you two of you
talking about Provence and France, I have had such a
better time than that I have spent. I have spent
the last month following the Auckland Council elections, I went
to twenty six candidate meetings. I went to another fourteen
related events forty times.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Forty times. Wow, I don't think you.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Could top that, really, because I know the thrills every day,
often more than one a day, on and on.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Well, I just how's the counseling game?
Speaker 3 (04:45):
I like you can tell I'm still there.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
I just love the fact that you seem to almost
be enjoying the company of Wayne Brown these days, and
you and I wouldn't be surprised if you voted from
but who knows. I'm not going to tell you how
I know you ain't.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
No, I do enjoy his company generally. He's a friendly
guy unless you cross him, of course, and he's not
and I've crossed them in the past, but we seem
to be getting on at the moment. I think there
was a big vote for a core program that he
has advocated, which is to do with public transport has
(05:24):
to work well if we're going to have the city
transport overall working well. And in order to have public
transport working well, you need lots of people living near
the big public transport facility, so they need to live
near the new train station's CRLs giving Auckland, and that
means more density. He advocated for that, he didn't resile
from it at all, and he got handsomely re elected.
(05:44):
But also around the council, other councilors, other local boards
who were also on board with that message for how
do we build Auckland in the future, they also did
very well as well.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
So we ended up in Kuipro. Were you for what's
going on there?
Speaker 3 (05:59):
And I would love to have been up in Kuipra.
That's an extraordinary kind of meltdown situation.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
I just love the fact that their council buildings look
like they're sort of in a sort of a prefab Yeah,
it looks like something that's just temporarily there.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
I just want to say Darkerville is a lovely town,
all right, No, but.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
But I'm surprised that the council chamber just looks I mean,
I've only seen one bit of it, but it's sort
of like you can just wander up. It's like it's
a show home for you know, a pre fab house
that costs you maybe one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
They've got what sex or seven counselors. It's yeah, small
good stuff.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Okay, right, Well, on the more serious side of things,
I just thought to ask you guys for your thoughts
on the passing of Jim Bolger. Will start with you, Paul.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
Yeah, Well, I I actually had something to do with
him when he was Prime Minister, and I saw him
last year. We've all got Jim Boulders stories, have we?
And I his son Matt said, oh, Jim's over there
and he's by himself. Go over and I said, oh,
you know, hello Jim.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
As you do as you do.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Nobody was very approachable. He's very approachable. And he said
have I met you before? And I said yes, when
you were Prime minister.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
He said yes.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
I heard a rumor that I was. That's good, but
he he was. He was very engaged and he was
really interested in politics, and you know, he asked me
what I was doing, and he seemed genuinely interested in
what and what my response was going to be. He was,
he had a common touch and he really did, I think,
represent the zeitgeist through the nineties and terms of New Zealand.
(07:31):
He was, he was a very interesting politician.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Mischievously attempted to say that one of the most important
things in the world is sincerity and once you can
learn to fake that, you've got it made, which is
a politician's art.
Speaker 5 (07:43):
As well, I think, and Jim's case should probably be
a bit unfair on the guy.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Oh absolutely, yeah, Simon. I mean, these things it's not
unexpected news, isn't it. But it's a chance to look
back at, you know, someone who's contributed a significant amount
of public life in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Yes it is. I came across Jim Boldra very very
long time ago. I was in student politics way back
in the day, and we needed to have dealings with
the Minister of Education, who wouldn't talk to us and
who was moved Wellington some people may remember, and the
Minister of Labor because there were student work schemes in
those days and so we needed to have dealings with him.
The Prime Minister, Robert Muldoon at the time, had banned
(08:25):
me from parliament. But the Minister of.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Did you get banned by Mulder?
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Did you?
Speaker 4 (08:30):
You were like, who was the guy that got was
it Rolston? Who got?
Speaker 3 (08:33):
No?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Who was it was booted out of that press conference?
Speaker 3 (08:35):
That was Tom Scott?
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Tom Scott Scott, Yeah, me, you like Tom Scott junior.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Junior. The Minister of Labor thought that's a load of nonsense.
We're not going to do that, and he sat down
with me and we had useful conversations and useful meetings.
And that was Jim Bolger. So I've always had a
lot of time for him. The decent man. I knew then.
This is way back in nineteen eighty went through, declared
the decent society and did the reverse. I was reading
(09:00):
something last night about him, how there were two Jim Bolger's,
the Bulger who presided over the rise of what we
now call neoliberalism in the nineties, and also then more latterly,
the Bulger who after he was out of office, who
came back and said, we did the right thing. What
this is what he was in office, The right thing
about treaty relations. We did, and we've got to rethink
(09:25):
how we managed near liberalism and what that meant. My
feeling about it is that Jim Bolger believed in a
functional government, and in nineteen ninety he inherited a country
and crisis, economic crisis. The ben Z was about to
be bankrupt. Banks yes, and Ruth Richardson at that point declared,
(09:45):
I've got a solution, and he went with what appeared
to be functional that was very unpopular, so he got
rid of her. He went with Bill Birch and on
and on through his career. I think he went with
the option that he believed would allow functional government to continue.
It's a very good basis to start with.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
Was he the prime that triggered the national did a
lot of treaty settlements under Doug Graham as minister. It's funny,
isn't it, because National still see is sort of seen
as the party that hasn't you know, it doesn't do
a lot with Mario when in fact, the treaty settlement
process under Doug Graham.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I think everybody in that process, National has been the
leading party historically.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
But I mean in the vibe and social media, you
know what I mean, there's a vibe that's somehow that
and it's like, well how on I mean Doug Graham.
The amount of the progress they might under that was
quite significant. Then no Tahoo and set the baby.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
Yeah, the whack out of Tayy was the first treaty
settlement and that was Jim Bolger and Dug.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Graham, yep, got on him. Actually, funny thing is a
little bit of trivia. I was surprised. I never even
noticed this, but he had turned down special title of
Surge and Bulger, much like Alan Clark, which yeah, so
I can't say, but he obviously did have honors, but don't.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
You remember he had he took a very strong republican position.
He wanted this country to become a republic. But that
was against the inclinations of his own caucus.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Really, I thought it was something to do with something
to do with this strong Catholicism. But Irish, Irish, Irish, Yes,
a Republican, Yes, there we go.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
And Helen Clark not Irish, but said the same as
you said. And if you look around New Zealand there
are some high profile people and you might think, why
are they not a knight or a Dame Marris g
who died recently. I believe he turned down a knighthood
that rang Walker. There are others, would you guys take it?
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Of course not come.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
I turned it down five times, but they do say
you only get to turn.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
It down once. Don't actually funny enough, just a bit
of trivia. My my I'm my line of the family.
My my dad was the closest. He was the second
cousin of our first cousin, sorry once removed, of Lord
William Beveridge, who wrote the Beverage Report, which was the
foundation of the welshfare State and the National Health Service.
(12:10):
But it wasn't a hereditary title because one of us
looked into it somewhere I think went to you know,
just in case. But then because my dad's gone, we'd
have to put up with calling my oldest brother Lord William,
and I don't think if we can handle that.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
We'll do off our cats to you anyway.
Speaker 4 (12:25):
But actually it's nice to have. It's interesting to have
that connection with just in terms of seeing what he
did in the in the welfare state, and and his
views on things which were sort of liberal left, but
you know, he was also there was a sort of
eugenics side too. He didn't believe that people who weren't
contributing to society should be able to receive a benefit,
(12:46):
so you know, and yet quite.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Eugenics, but.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
He was part of a society wasn't an elusive version
of that anymore. But anyway, let's not get distracted by that,
which I think I just did it too late. Never mind,
now the peace deal with Gaza, I mean, gosh, it
does does look tenuous. But you know, I did make
a point of saying I think that Trump at least
as there's a bouquet for getting the final hostages home,
(13:15):
not all the deceased hostages. But was what was your
reaction to the news, Paul Ongoing.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
I think it's great that there's a cessation of fire,
although what's happened. It's full of ironies, isn't it. I mean,
And when I look at the images on my TV,
and I just wonder where the hell they're going to
find the other bodies in terms of the hostages that
have died. When you look at the obstruction the rubble,
(13:42):
and I've noticed this morning that that Hamas is the
one force in Gaza that's keeping peace at the moment
because there's all these rival factions. Yeah, and then of
course there's the ability to get particularly to the Rougher crossing,
(14:03):
the ability to get the the AID trucks in. I mean,
you know, there's still a long way to go, but
at least it's not as violent as it's been.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
No for the time being, I guess. I mean, you
don't want to be Look, he got the final hostages back.
Good on him for that, but you know, it just
seems that that's a bit too ad hoc. It's like
they're talking about the disarmament of Hamas who don't look
like they're ever going to give up their arms. And
it is the Middle East. We've seen the history of
(14:34):
continued conflict, and I'm you'd have to be pretty optimistic
to think that it wasn't going to somehow rear its
head again. I'm very cynical about what's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Oh, I think so. I'm also cynical about what will
happen with and around Donald Trump. I think it is
a fabulous thing for the world that Donald Trump wants
to win a Nobel Peace prize that is clearly achieved,
something that nobody thought could be done. And if he
continues to do it with the Ukraine because he really
wants that prize, well good on him for doing that.
(15:04):
But a larger picture to this, which is that he
is still he is presiding over the disintegration or the
destruction of the democratic institutions of his own country, and
that is widespread and systematic, and it's going to be
very hard to rebuild. And it strikes me that the
model he is moving towards is an old fashioned medieval royalty.
(15:27):
I am the king. I will tell you what to do.
Stop that war, and you you're going to jail for
speaking against me.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Oh yeah, there's the domestic politics things which I must
admit I just pushed to one side and go, well,
at least we've got the hostages back. But then as
I think it was the Daily Telegraph I was reading
reminded us that, and you almost forget this because they're
going he's got all the hostages back. But under Biden
they were about one hundred hostages released. So both presidencies
worked hard for it. I guess the thing is, it's
(15:56):
I just I wouldn't trust to masses as far as
I could throw, and I wouldn't trust net and Yahoo
because They'll only need the smallest pretext to go back
in there and continue leveling the place. And I'm really
worried that that's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Poor.
Speaker 5 (16:10):
Yes, yeah, I mean with Netta Yahu. I mean, a
whole of Israel is distracted and rightly focused on this conflict.
But the question that is being asked increasingly, I notice
in the press is what happens when this conflict is over.
There's a whole lot of issues around Netta now, his
previous behavior.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
And whether allegations of corruptruption.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
And whether or not you know, I mean, my understanding
is that he doesn't have the support of the majority
of Israelis at this point. So and you notice that
that that that event, and that in Israel the other
day that they had Trump there, but they wouldn't have
bb there, you know, he just would generate a reaction.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Trump's name cheered and whose name bood by the same crowd.
Speaker 4 (16:55):
I'm a little bit with I think it's King a
Dollar of Jordan who said that he doesn't trust in
net at all because he said he's got he and
his government had vested interest in continuing conflict to avoid
accountability in an election.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I think that's true, and that also points to the
background to the conflict in Gaza that with America's support,
that conflict went on for two long, terrible years before
they heroically stopped it.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Do you reckon that Trump cares more about the Nobel
Peace Prize than actual pick because he does seem to
be anti war. I think we've got to give him.
He does seem to not like war in other countries.
Do you think that he's.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
Except domestically the national guard.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
The national guard in so called democratic cities that are
under you know, crisis already, which is of course not true.
But is he against war? I don't know he is.
He is extra judicially judicially killing Venezuelans in boats by
bombing the boats. You know, maybe they are running drugs.
(18:02):
Maybe they're not. But even if they are, it's not
a capital offense. There is a due process that can go,
that can happen.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
The guy I feel behind the scenes, you know, Stephen Miller.
He's the one who talks about plenary power. There's that
strange interview where he mentions the words plenary. Then he
pretends as Mike's failed, and he stops talking because he
realizes had a slip of the tongue. He it's guys
like that I worry about because I don't think. I
don't think Trump urns his presidency with his hands on
the controls all the time. I think he says a
few things then leaves it up to his good.
Speaker 5 (18:32):
Miller's the power behind the throne. Yeah, increasingly looks like,
doesn't it. But then, I mean, the thing about Trump
is that what.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Is he going to do next?
Speaker 5 (18:41):
It's the it's the sort.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Of I don't know. Yeah, I'm that's just I hope.
Look and look, if he could stop the Ukraine war,
I'd give him them the Nobel Prize. Personally, I guess
if he could get that stopped. But let's move on
to that, because he's just met with a Celenski. He's
going to be meeting with Putin. And the reason I'm
pessimistic is I think Putin knows how to wrap him
(19:03):
around his little finger and might have met with Zelenski.
Now there's no talk of Tomahawks, mind you, they'd be
silly to talk about it before he's met Putin. But
what do you what prospect of any movement there? Simon?
Speaker 3 (19:14):
The Trump Putin relationship is a little bit similar to
the Trump Nettan Yahoo relationship in that Trump's getting what
he wants out of Nett and Yahoo and is going
to try and get what he wants out of Putin.
But what does you have to also argue Netanyah who
got what he wanted out of Trump? So Putin? What
does he want out of Putin? It is very hard
(19:35):
to know, isn't it, Except that he wants that Nobel
Peace Prize. He wants to be able to say I
made a difference here. What's I'm the negotiating president, the
mediating president, I'm the guy who can fix things. So
he's very keen to follow through on that. But Putin
has given him nothing at any stage in this conflict,
(19:56):
in this war, there's no sign that he's about.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
To what about the tomahawks? Do you think they should
give Zelenski the tomahawks?
Speaker 5 (20:02):
Well, did you notice that it was on the table
and now it's off the table. And the BBC is
saying that some of the Ukrainians come out of that
meeting with Trump and saying we're not sure what's happening next,
and whether or he goes into that meeting with Putin
and Budapest with the tomahawks again on the table.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
It is a fascinating thing about tomahawks. Tomahawks appear to
have assumed the role that nuclear weapons used to have.
We will threaten you with them, but of course everyone
knows we're not going to use them, but we will
threaten you with them tomahawks. I guess the world's a
better place that those threats are not being made with
nuclear weapons. But if tomahawks are given to Ukraine, that
(20:43):
will be a profound escalation of the warm It has
to happen in a context where Putin is able to
save enough face to say, Okay, we got what we wanted.
It's hard to see how that come.
Speaker 5 (20:56):
And Trump, again, to his credit, did talk about the
escalation associated with Tomahawks.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
Yeah, I think he's aware. By the way, I just
wanted a little bit of a winge. And most of
the reporting around the Nobel Prize, yes that almost hardly
anywhere would you hear someone mentioned, because they're all talking about, oh,
we'll Trump get the Nobel Prize, as if it could
have been possible this time when nominations closed in January,
I hardly ever heard that in the reporting. It's like
it was never gonna happen, and yet they made it
(21:24):
look like, oh, He's been snubbed.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
And you know the irony of it that the prize
actually went to the opposition leader in Venezuela, who in
any other situation would have been someone Trump championed.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
So there we go. Let's call it a win one. Anyway,
when take need to take a break, I've gone way
too long. We'll be back into the moment of twenty
eight past three News Talk sed B. Yes, welcome back.
I guess my panels today, Simon Wilson and Paul Spoonley.
You know, look, we have had some fairly serious topics
and we continue with this one. The I'm wondering whether
the whole name suppression thing is we're getting a little
(21:57):
bit the courts. It's not really keeping up with the
modern world. So the rumors on TikTok, which I'm going
to spell this out very specifically, wrongly claimed that Matt
Mowbray was a member of a wealthy key we family
convicted of some really nasty stuff and it wasn't him.
It was on TikTok, but because the information around name
(22:19):
suppression order identified that it was a wealthy New Zealander Simon.
I just don't know if our name suppression laws are
fit for purpose these days, or am I just looking
at a couple of isolated cases and trying to write
it all off.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
There is no easy answer to this one. Yeah, I'm
aware of two or three cases situations where either prominent
New Zealanders or public people in public life are accused
of things or done things, and in my view it's
not in the public interest. So I've written stories about them. Yeah,
(22:55):
And I don't tend to because I think people do
deserve a private life. So I kind of start from
that point. When it comes to you allow some information out,
but you don't allow enough information out and don't allow
too much information out. It gets problematic when the wrong
(23:17):
people have their fingers pointed at them. As Matt Mowbray found,
he had the ability to shut that one down.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
Lucky, thankfully, thankfully.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
And of course because of the Internet, we all have
access to far more information than the courts would like
us to and that happens all the time. I don't
know that it follows from that that you would just
give up and say, oh, it can't be name suppression.
I mean, you know there are people. I mean, the
obvious example is there are people who commit murders. It
(23:46):
doesn't mean you give up on nables against murder just
because it happens. You want to have a society where
you work harder to prevent it.
Speaker 4 (23:53):
How much I think, I guess you've just got the
courts somehow. They need to need to be some guidance
from the Chief Justice whatever about cases which are likely
to attract the attention of social media. So there's some
really nasty charges and you the description of a wealthy
New Zealand family. I mean I've had I was saying
to you guys before that I used to get teased
(24:13):
by my brothers or something when some broadcaster was charged.
There wasn't utam you know, as a joke, but it's
like it's a small pool there is.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
It's just going to add that there is a complication
to it. Whenever it's a wealthy New Zealander who we
can't name, the implication appears to be that it's because
they're wealthy that we can't name them. And that seems wrong.
If that is what it is, it is wrong.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
What do you reckon, Paula.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
I couldn't work out why there was continued name suppression.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
First.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
Secondly, the connection with Matt Mowbray was made by an
AI chat box, so it wasn't even a real person.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
So the.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
Connection and there's a previous connection with this case with
another high wealth New Zealander. Yeah, so we're getting interference here.
The one thing that did puzzle me, and you guys
might know more than me. But the person that was
convicted got five point five years, but then got a
discount of fifty six percent, and it's really interesting percent
(25:18):
fifty six so it goes down to two point five years,
so that it's it's five to ten percent for good character,
fifteen percent for mental health issues, fifteen percent for taking
part in reb I didn't know it was just like
I didn't know.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
There was account system. It sounds like it was fifty percent,
but they were GST registered, so they got JSD on
top as well.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
That discount system is the reason why there are some
teenagers who commit quite horrific crimes and then people are outraged.
They don't get thrown in jail for the rest of
their lives, and is because they are young and vulnerable
and have been abused for most of their lives. And
there are place.
Speaker 4 (25:54):
I think, I think the thing with the name suppression thing.
If you're going to if you're going to go with
name suppression, then and it's a really high profile sort
of case, you simply cannot have any way of narracked down.
It should be like a man in his forties that
that should be as much as you get charge as
opposed to it. Or it's a wealthy New Zealand family,
Oh it's a prominent sports person. Oh it's this no no,
(26:16):
if you're going to have because you know that it's
going to start the ball rolling of people talking, and that.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Is that I'm looking at. Simon. Here, was that a
journalist thing, the description of the wealthy New Zealander?
Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yes, of course, Okay, of course don't describe as anything
at all, so.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
We need to focus on well they need how the
supports just need to say you are only able to
describe the age or whatever, the age and gender of
the person who's been charged. Otherwise you do leave it up.
Otherwise it gets out. I mean when there is a
very high profile case going in with the Marakopa thing
that we're not allowed to talk about, but just about
(26:54):
every New Zealand knows the facts behind that. Because I
don't know, I don't know what the outset of the
stuff in.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
That case, whether or not people know what's being suppressed,
the suppression order is apprehensive. No information at all apart
from what's already been in the product domain, is allowed
to be discussed or broadcast or published. In my view,
that's a really good thing. Even though people may feel
there are ways to find out information. I think it
(27:21):
is extremely good. And the reason for that actually primarily
is that as we know this man and his children,
there are children involved.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
I think the thing is that I have a problem
with is that I'd rather that the facts are out
there with about whatever through reputable media sources than the
Bush Telegraph, which spreads any sort of rumor and somewhere
in the middle is the truth. But there's a whole
lot of other bollocks. It goes with it, and that's
the problem. But anyway, we better move on with We
better move on with our next item of conversation. In fact, no,
(27:52):
we won't. We have to take another moment. We'll be
back in just a ticket. It's twenty two minutes to
four news talks that b Yes, welcome back to the
wee can collective my panels today as Simon Wilson and
Paul Spoonley. Now, I have mixed feelings about this one.
I've always thought that the advertising changes, you know, the
having advertisements banned on certain religious days being well, for instance,
(28:13):
Christmas and Easter. Now that basically the government is scrapping
those advertising restrictors, which I generally support, but from a
non sort of religious point of view, because I think
Christmas sort of belongs to everyone. I really don't want
those ads in the middle of love actually telling me
that I could have brought my Christmas presents a day
later for half the price with all those obnoxious boxing
(28:35):
day sales, which is really going to annoy me. But
generally I think the advertising restrictions had to go, Simon.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
I think what you're objecting to is advertising, and we
all object to advertising. But advertising pays for my salary
and yours. Yeah, it pays for media to exist. Yes,
if we don't have advertising, then we have to have
high levels of subscriptions. We have to have a licensing
fees so people can listen to the radio or watch television,
(29:05):
all of those things, and people don't like those either.
So advertising is a is a mechanism that allows us
to have media, and it ought to be distributed relatively
evenly rather than kept off some days.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
I still want to keep Christmas Day free, but.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
Yeah too, I want to I want to watch share
sheank Redemption.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Redemption without ads on it and love actually yeah love?
Speaker 5 (29:28):
Actually no, couldn't we have a couple of days without
without advertising? But the thing that struck me about the
story firstly the assumption that somehow there's going to be
more advertising revenue, but secondly that forty three percent of
us get our information from And I'm desperately trying to
look where.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
This is social media? Was it social media?
Speaker 5 (29:50):
So YouTube?
Speaker 3 (29:51):
YouTube?
Speaker 4 (29:52):
YouTube for it? So it's actually right they've changed it
to be fair. Yes, I just know that there is
there's always that thing at the end of the day,
the Christmas comes on. You've seen a million times, and
I it's actually not that object to advertising per se.
But I always have hated the Boxing Day sales. As
(30:12):
soon as the shops clothes on Boxing Eve suddenly fifty
Boxing Day.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
I think you mean Christmas Eve, Christmas Christmas. Yeah, And
we're a demographic that remembered advertising free media.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
So every Sunday yeah, yeah, really used to be. Back
in the day.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
You wouldn't have missed it because you would have been
at church anyway.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
I heard about it.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
We had little screens on the backs of the pews,
so we all we all actually agree with what the
government's done here. I don't want it's inevitable. Yeah, okay,
I thought we're going to get more out of that. No,
Sorrysial back onto the heavy stuff, because we have had
some fairly sort of substantial topics. I must admit I
(31:03):
did think that Simon Brown either has a very thick
skin or doesn't care whatever when he was telling the
doctors that they were crossing an ethical line by striking,
because at the heart of medicine some very strong ethical
considerations all the time, and so I don't think that
was quite the right move from him, considering all the
(31:25):
time doctors and nurses are governed by ethics and the
hippocratics that of oath and.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
All that gets updated unlike politicians. Yeah, although actually they're
supposed to be that.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
I didn't think big call Syban.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Simmy and Brown lacks something that most other people have,
that skin diplomacy whatever whatever it is. I mean, there
are a number of ways you could answer that, and
everyone will have their own and I'll just leave that there.
But yeah, just to tell doctors, essentially what he was
saying was striking is wrong or the government, we the
(32:03):
government the employer will aside when it's right to strike.
There are exceptions to the general rule, but the general
rule is that strikes are regarded as a legitimate democratic
tool in our society for negotiating between employer and employee.
And we have done as a society fairly well out
of having those negotiations be robust and having broad rules,
(32:27):
but certainly not having the people with the power, which
is the employer the government in this case, setting all
the rules and telling the employees you can't do it.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
Does feel like it's striking season, like the teachers. We've
had the fire service who struck for a couple for
an hour or something, and it does feel I don't
know as a as a punter. For instance, my wife's
a teacher, so we have a vested interest in more money,
of course, But I've got to say that they're not
They're not necessarily winning the battle because times are tough.
(32:56):
There are a lot of people in the private sector
be like God, I'd love to have had the pay
rises that some people have had. So the messages. The
economy is struggling, and I know, of course we love doctors.
I'd love everyone to get more of whatever. But I'm
just not sure.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
I'm not sure who's winning the argument here. Putting aside
the ethical accusations of.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
Yes, well, the court of public opinion is going to
be really interesting on this one, and whether or not
it comes down on the side of Simon.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
Or the doctors.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
The initial evidence is that it's on the side of
the doctors. So Simen's going into the lines den and
then poking the beer.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
But it's big and hairy, and it's got clause it is.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
It is and there's some there's some real ironies in here.
If you look at our training of medical doctors and specialists,
we essentially train people to go and then work overseas
and we then bring in immigrant doctors. There are some
things that appear broken about our system and we've got
to get it right. We're not competing with Australia, and
we're not competing in the healthcare sector with Australia. So
(34:03):
you know, I've got some sympathy with doctors and some
sympathy with New Zealand Inc. To get them here and
stay here.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
I agree with Paul about that. I think at the
heart of this, for the public, it's not just an
industrial dispute. This is a dispute about a situation where
our public health system is in real trouble. There is
no real sign from either National or labor that they
have a mechanism or a great desire to fix it.
Speaker 4 (34:34):
Now.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
They are, particularly on the National's part, driven by the
idea that tax cuts will make a better economy and
therefore a better society, and there is, in my mind,
in a direct relationship between those two things. Our health
system is significantly underfunded and under.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Resource and that's still at thirty two billion. It's a
lot of money we spend.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Of course it is. But we need the system. We
need it to be much more functional, and until governments
work out how to do that, we're going to stay
in trouble.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
And and if I can put on my demography hat here,
what we're looking at is increasing costs as the population ages.
So this is going to get worse, not better in
terms of the cost.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Of that health system.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
Glenn Calhoun, who you will probably knows a lot of
FENUA GP and poet, has said that our national our
health system should be a national treasure, and we could
say the same aboutter education system. They're at the core
of our society and so we've really got to get
these things right and working well.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
Actually, just on the fire strike, the PAS server strike.
Fun fact, because I know someone who works in the volunteers.
What percent this is a fun fact. What percentage of
the fire service are actually professional? Or shall I put
it the other way around?
Speaker 5 (35:49):
What percentage eighty five percent of volunteer?
Speaker 4 (35:53):
Isn't it amazing?
Speaker 5 (35:54):
I'm speaking to them. In a few weeks, I thought
it was.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
Over eighty percent of volunteers. So when everyone was sort
of rendering their garments about the fire service being on strike.
It was actually being stuffed while the professionals were on
strike by the volunteers. And it's like that was a
surprising step to me. Was that surprised?
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Did you know? No? I didn't know the actual number,
but I knew it was significant. Yeah, gosh. Well, in
other words, outside of the big cities, all firefighters are voluntary.
Speaker 5 (36:23):
Yes, raging and the raging and then on the challenge
will be to get new people into the So I'm
thinking about new people into the volunteer firefighters. So again
we've got a bit of a crisis.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Now I must heard. I thought you were talking about
firefighters and you said that they're ragings and having a
great time. I imagine Christmas for the volunteer fire fighters. One.
Speaker 5 (36:46):
If you look at some of their calendars.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
Probably.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Raging and aging they were better things.
Speaker 4 (36:54):
They still do the farming calendar.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
They's got one coming back to come out. I saw
a promo for it.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
How are they looking? Well?
Speaker 3 (37:02):
How did that flash up in front of me?
Speaker 4 (37:05):
Yeah? What do you? Let's Wilson with naked your algorithm stuff. Hey,
we'll be back in just to take it's nine and
a half minutes to four news Talks. He'd be Yes
News talk zaid be back with my panelist Simon Wilson
and Paul Spoonley, who I jokingly said at the start
of the show have more titles than than the person
(37:27):
the subject of our next topic, which is Prince Andrew.
I actually had a bit of searching guys as to
whether he's still Prince Andrew. But I think he's still
Prince Andrew. But that's about it.
Speaker 5 (37:36):
He's going to lose the Duke of York because.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
Yes, and he's giving up his dukedom. So the grand
old Duke of York, he has.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Way up and halfway down. He's halfway down now the
top of the.
Speaker 4 (37:45):
Hell and whatever. He's well down, whatever that is. It's
sort of been death by thousand cuts, hasn't it.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Simon, Well, I don't know that he's dead yet. I
mean the cuts will continue, they'll go on and on
and on. And he brought it all on himself.
Speaker 7 (38:01):
It's it's it's mostly when there are celebrity scandals, there's
an element of got caught in the wrong place, wrong time,
unfortunate circumstances.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
What actually when I say mostly sometimes, but in this case. No,
it's a lifetime of getting it wrong and guess what
it comes back on.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
You remember when he was actually celebrated for being randy,
and you know, he came back from the Falklands and
the media and Hello magazine all loved him, and well
times changed.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
I was going to say he's a very unattractive man,
but I think that's been kind to him. I think
he's quite objectionable. I mean, you know the stuff and
the latest which is to say I'd cut tires with
Epstein and then he's sending him emails.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Just this guy.
Speaker 5 (38:49):
You know, if you want to undermine the royal family, boy,
he's doing a good job.
Speaker 4 (38:53):
Well I think that King Charles and Prince William are
actually keeping the other end of it up pretty well, really,
aren't they. Even if you're not a royalist someone.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Well I'm not a royalist, And I'd have to say
in Charles's defense, every time I see him, I think, gosh,
how did you turn from the relatively liberal greenie that
you were into this. I'm just going to say pompous.
But at least he's not saying silly, stupid things and
(39:24):
William isn't either, So yes, in that sense they are
keeping there.
Speaker 5 (39:27):
We talked about ethics before. Man raw family and ethics.
Speaker 4 (39:33):
Well, they have a random relationship with them, depending on
who it is. Actually I must have been. I'm a
bit I quite like Charles, I'm quite like William and Kate,
you know. And it's a model that still seems to work.
And there we go. Anyway, Hey, guys, Paul Spernley and
Simon Wilson, thanks so much. By the way, before we
hit to the news, this is not so much for you, guys.
I'm just going to say, because I think she's reading
(39:54):
the news at four o'clock before she goes home, a
big happy birthday to Sandy Hodge forty nine.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Again, I don't know, nobody makes a compliment like you.
Speaker 4 (40:10):
I don't think before I speak you should wake that
out by now. Anyway, we'll be back with the parents
with the one REFREDI show ed McKnight's with us back.
Speaker 3 (40:17):
Shortly for more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
Listen live to News Talks it'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.